Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Like I said, please indulge me. Explain with links/evidence how you're able to infer so much from the Boonen ruling if it that ruling is not in the public domain. Just imagine you're really clever and I'm really dumb. Shouldn't be hard from the tone of your posts so far

As you appear to be either unwilling or unable to read what I've written, we're going to deal with one thing at a time WP: which part of what I have already explained about the importance of the Astana and Boonen cases have you not understood? Do you require me to cut and paste what's already been posted? Do you expect me to repeat myself using different words? What is your problem here?

I've been very civil and patient with you so far WP, despite the ease and frequency with which you hurl the label fanboy at people you disagree with, which frequently includes me. If you want to ditch the civility and go back to name calling, can I politely suggest you pick a fight with someone else? Cause it bores the tits off me.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Judge Ulrich will hand Froome a 24 month suspension on the eve of Le Tour so he can go home and enjoy becoming father for the second time. Thomas will be happy, Prudhomme will be happy and God knows how many cycling fans.

seemingly there are no people who may be unhappy with such an outcome. granted, the situation of froome beating nibali and others in grand tours over the last 5 or so years demands huge emotional revenge, so a suspension would be great. oneday anti-doping poulpe will reach other big riders and other fans will be happy about them getting banned, but it will be okish as people champions can do whatever they want, don't they?

Damn, he is about to outdo Nibali once again and join Lance and Berto in the very elite group of multiple GT winners convicted for doping.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Like I said, please indulge me. Explain with links/evidence how you're able to infer so much from the Boonen ruling if it that ruling is not in the public domain. Just imagine you're really clever and I'm really dumb. Shouldn't be hard from the tone of your posts so far

As you appear to be either unwilling or unable to read what I've written, we're going to deal with one thing at a time WP: which part of what I have already explained about the importance of the Astana and Boonen cases have you not understood? Do you require me to cut and paste what's already been posted? Do you expect me to repeat myself using different words? What is your problem here?

I've been very civil and patient with you so far WP, despite the ease and frequency with which you hurl the label fanboy at people you disagree with, which frequently includes me. If you want to ditch the civility and go back to name calling, can I politely suggest you pick a fight with someone else? Cause it bores the tits off me.

OK, so the more I press you to back up your theories the more you slide away

Btw "I've been very civil and patient with you so far" :lol: :lol:

I rest my case, your honour

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

OK, so the more I press you to back up your theories the more you slide away

Btw "I've been very civil and patient with you so far" :lol: :lol:

I rest my case, your honour

OK WP, you want to play games, play with yourself. You want answers, explain where exactly you have a problem with what I've said. I've asked you three times now, you don't seem too keen on answering.

And WRT Valverde? If you spent less time labelling those you disagree with as fanboys, you'd know what Valverde case is being talked about. The judgement you posted shows you haven't a clue.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Like I said, please indulge me. Explain with links/evidence how you're able to infer so much from the Boonen ruling if it that ruling is not in the public domain. Just imagine you're really clever and I'm really dumb. Shouldn't be hard from the tone of your posts so far

As you appear to be either unwilling or unable to read what I've written, we're going to deal with one thing at a time WP: which part of what I have already explained about the importance of the Astana and Boonen cases have you not understood? Do you require me to cut and paste what's already been posted? Do you expect me to repeat myself using different words? What is your problem here?

I've been very civil and patient with you so far WP, despite the ease and frequency with which you hurl the label fanboy at people you disagree with, which frequently includes me. If you want to ditch the civility and go back to name calling, can I politely suggest you pick a fight with someone else? Cause it bores the tits off me.

OK, so the more I press you to back up your theories the more you slide away

Btw "I've been very civil and patient with you so far" :lol: :lol:

I rest my case, your honour

Have to agreewitn you WP; the Boonen example is a poor one. Boonen at the time was facing criminal charges for his cocaine use, additionally many in the sport including the ASO were worried about him and wanted him to seek counselling and rehabilitation for what was generally accepted at the time that TB had a very bad alcohol problem which lead to cocaine use. The UCI did attempt to suspended him under the former rule of harming the image of the sport which didn’t come to much. Boonen eventually appealed to the French Olympic Committee for the ASO ban. The parallels between the Froome and Boonen cases are few and far between.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Have to agreewitn you WP; the Boonen example is a poor one. Boonen at the time was facing criminal charges for his cocaine use, additionally many in the sport including the ASO were worried about him and wanted him to seek counselling and rehabilitation for what was generally accepted at the time that TB had a very bad alcohol problem which lead to cocaine use. The UCI did attempt to suspended him under the former rule of harming the image of the sport which didn’t come to much. Boonen eventually appealed to the French Olympic Committee for the ASO ban. The parrellls between the Froome and Boonen cases are few and far between.

Another who can't be bothered reading what's written. You make a wonderful pair.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Have to agreewitn you WP; the Boonen example is a poor one. Boonen at the time was facing criminal charges for his cocaine use, additionally many in the sport including the ASO were worried about him and wanted him to seek counselling and rehabilitation for what was generally accepted at the time that TB had a very bad alcohol problem which lead to cocaine use. The UCI did attempt to suspended him under the former rule of harming the image of the sport which didn’t come to much. Boonen eventually appealed to the French Olympic Committee for the ASO ban. The parrellls between the Froome and Boonen cases are few and far between.

Another who can't be bothered reading what's written. You make a wonderful pair.

No, not really. You’ve just told everyone else they’re wrong and refuse to accept an alternate opinion other than your own. Your usual shtick.

The disparity and time between the two cases makes it a poor example.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The disparity and time between the two cases makes it a poor example.

Keep saying that. The more it's repeated, the more true it becomes. It doesn't relate in any way to what I posted but hey, if it keeps you happy, that's all that counts.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The disparity and time between the two cases makes it a poor example.

Keep saying that. The more it's repeated, the more true it becomes. It doesn't relate in any way to what I posted but hey, if it keeps you happy, that's all that counts.

Keep saying what? Have no idea what you are talking about sometimes, you get so caught up attempting to be right you forget what your original argument was.

Regardless, the Boonen example is a poor one, it was over ten years ago. Anti-doping has changed, the rules have changed and the relationship between the ASO and the UCI has changed. The other differing factor was the ASO met with the team. They were genuinely worried about Boonen and his health. In Froome’s case, not.

Find a better example before lambasting everyone with righteousness, it’s Easter for crying out loud!

 

[70kmph]

Re:

Judge Ulrich will hand Froome a 24 month suspension on the eve of Le Tour so he can go home and enjoy becoming father for the second time. Thomas will be happy, Prudhomme will be happy and God knows how many cycling fans.

Ulrich Haas was on Petacchi's panel when he made his appeal to CAS and got his nice sanction there

 

[Summoned]

Re: Re:

Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.

You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.

OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.

You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.

OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.

Heck you can even add to all of this that Spain didn't have any anti-doping laws during this time either. They put anti-doping laws on the books after Valverde and Contador's bans were over.

 

[AussieGoddess]

so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.

You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.

OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.

What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.

So no idea what FMK and his magical: “I’ve been telling you all for 2 months” is about in relation to Valverde and precedent. Sure, it’s his opinion, which is perfectly fine but some how he’s trying to infer his opinion is the only opinion.

I mean heck you could compare different Clenbutrol cases and each of the various appeals and have a different decision on each one.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.

You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.

OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.

What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.

So no idea what FMK and his magical: “I’ve been telling you all for 2 months” is about in relation to Valverde and precedent. Sure, it’s his opinion, which is perfectly fine but some how he’s trying to infer his opinion is the only opinion.

I mean heck you could compare different Clenbutrol cases and each of the various appeals and have a different decision on each one.

Valverde, Boonen and FMK aside (no offence,man) ... straight up question, dee Hog .....

What do you really think is the chance that ASO will try to bar Dawg from riding the TDF?

ASO has distanced itself from the News.com.au (website) story that claimed that ASO was seriously considering this move (of course, this distancing does not mean they won't). It's all Cost-Benefit Analysis, is it not?

"Disrepute"? ... euphemism for "will we lose money." ASO's not the County Sports Council. MegaCorporateSportsConglomerate. Do they want to run the legal gauntlets of such a gesture?

Do they want to weather a nuclear war between L'Equipe and The Guardian when some journo pens the article ... "ASO and Lapartient Give Bardet and France the Break They Need."

 

[rick james]

Re:

so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.

well, that's a lie

 

[macbindle]

And that is irrelevant to the point Aussie Goddess is making. Call it an open AAF if it makes you feel better. AG's point still stands.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.

well, that's a lie

in a world full of grey's there's always some that like to stick in their comfort zone of black and white....

 

[yaco]

Re:

so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.

I am unsure whether you a lawyer or not - Though if you are a lawyer, then I'm surprised at your attitude - The only reason Froome is bringing the sport into disrepute ( at the moment ) is because the Froome case was leaked to the media - It should have remained confidential until Froome is sanctioned - I believe the UCI is causing any disrepute.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

And that is irrelevant to the point Aussie Goddess is making. Call it an open AAF if it makes you feel better. AG's point still stands.

Maybe ... maybe not.

Dawg’s AAF is not an ‘absolute liability’ (so to speak) offense such as would be a finding of Clenbuterol. IF he can explain the levels, he may be exonerated. Therefore, perhaps considered less egregious, at this point, therefore
less chance of his pending case being seen as bringing disrepute to the sport, god forbid.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

so let me get this straight

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

but your not trolling. right.

I'm out.

I am unsure whether you a lawyer or not - Though if you are a lawyer, then I'm surprised at your attitude - The only reason Froome is bringing the sport into disrepute ( at the moment ) is because the Froome case was leaked to the media - It should have remained confidential until Froome is sanctioned - I believe the UCI is causing any disrepute.

Agree ... and the media circus is getting its share of kicks in to establish the said conjured atmosphere of disrepute.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

You dont understand the difference between Froome's case - where he has tested positive and has an open case of doping waiting to be heard ... and Contador's case where he had been through his case, won and cleared his name and was free to ride but for which one side had appealed the decision.

I don't care about the differences, you refuse to acknowledge the points where they are exactly the same. Go us!

And you dont see how having an open, unheard doping offense against the highest ranked rider might damage the reputation of a race?

Bert rode the race with an appeal and a potential ban hanging over his head: just why didn't that bring disrepute to the race? Oh, I remember now! He sucked royally!

but your not trolling. right.

The second last refuge of the scoundrel: call the person you disagree with a troll. Go you!

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

And that is irrelevant to the point Aussie Goddess is making. Call it an open AAF if it makes you feel better. AG's point still stands.

Maybe ... maybe not.

Dawg’s AAF is not an ‘absolute liability’ (so to speak) offense such as would be a finding of Clenbuterol. IF he can explain the levels, he may be exonerated. Therefore, perhaps considered less egregious, at this point, therefore
less chance of his pending case being seen as bringing disrepute to the sport, god forbid.

I don't disagree with that, but I'm commenting on Aussie Godess's point that Contador had already been exonerated.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Been though this? You were the one asking FMK with your "how many precedents are there of riders challenging organisers at CAS over the right to ride?" but now saying you hate that barrack-room lawyers favourite legal term?

I really don't have a clue what you are asking or wanting to discuss or in what way, especially if you have already had the question answered before and have 'been through all this'! I'm out, it's like talking to my toddler i'm afraid.

You're really going to have to stop this samhocking, it's passed tiresome: rather than relying on your memory try reading back and reminding yourself on exactly where the precedent question came from.

OK, so your link here is to a post saying there has been two months of discussion of what the process to refuse a rider starting a race looks like. Which is fine, it has come up here and there, but I don't remember much, if any discussion, of Valverde in that. Presumably you are referring to Valverde starting the 2007 Worlds RR championship?

If I am misunderstanding your reference, I apologize. But if I am correct in what you are referring to, three thoughts come to mind immediately. First, that was not the ASO trying to prevent Valverde starting a race. Second, Valverde had the support of the Spanish federation during that process. Third, and to some extent this flows from the second point, the process as a whole was much different at that time, especially so given what was to come with Contador and Armstrong as examples of bringing the sport into disrepute.

Again, it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are referring to, and if so, I am very sorry. But if that is the case, it is also quite possible that you have not been quite as clear as you might have been about the Valverde case's relevance to what is going on with Froome now.

Try focusing on the points of law made clear in the judgement...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

What’s even more absurd is there is simply no precedent in sports arbitration, there’s not even an official record of decisions that could be referred to for precedent. Sports lawyers will refer to previous decisions but for the most part there is no public record to why a specific decision was made and a judge has requirement to follow previous decisions.

It's funny, it's you and WP seem determined to bring the issue of precedent into this. Why do you think that might be? As for there being no official record of decision? Say the *** what? Seriously, say the *** what? CAS publishes, IIRC the stat, something like 30% of its judgements. And one of those published judgements is the Valverde case.

So, once again, here we have TheHog stating something that is blatantly, patently untrue. Why does that keep happening? And why the hell don't we have some sort of rule against the blatant telling of such porkies?